A landlord who is occupying only a part of a building can evict a tenant from the remaining part for additional accommodation, irrespective of the purpose for which the additional accommodation is required, provided that the hardship to the tenant does not outweigh the advantage to the landlord.

CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) THE question that arise for determination in this case is one under Sec. 10 (3) (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, which is as follows :"a landlord who is occupying only a part of a building whether residential or non-residential, may, notwithstanding anything in clause (a), apply to the Controller for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on, as the case may be. "on this point two decisions of this court are placed before me. One is the decision in Shajehan Saheb v. Yakub Khan Saheb, (196 2) 1 Andh WR 205 at p. 210 in which it is held that :". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The landlord cannot evict a tenant from a residential building when he required it for a non-residential purpose ; similarly, he could only evict a tenant from a portion of the building which is used for non-residential purpose by the tenant, only if he required that portion for non-residential purpose and not when he required for residential purpose. "the learned Judge further held that :". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . if the portion of the building in the occupation of the tenant is used for residential purpose, the landlord could evict him only if he required that portion for a residential purpose. "on the other hand, Mr. Y. B. Tatarao, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision in Appalaraju v. Samburatnamurthy, 1961-2 Andh WR 235 wherein another learned Judge took a contrary view. It may be mentioned here that in the former decision, this decision is not referred to. In view of this conflict, I direct that the Civil Revision Petition be posted before a Bench of two Judges under R. 1 of Appellate Side Rules. JUDGMENT Ekbote, J. This revision petition has been referred to the Bench by our learned brother, Chandrasekhara Sastry, J. , in view of the conflict between two decisions of this Court construing Sec. 10 (3) (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act ). The material facts are that the respondent-landlady filed an eviction petition against the petitioner-tenant mainly on the ground that she requires the premises for her additional accommodation in view of her two sons getting recently married. She lives in a portion of the same building in which the tenant has been given a portion on rent. The tenants contention was that the landlady does not bona fide require the additional accommodation, that the tenant has been occupying the premises for over twenty years and that if he is now asked to vacate, his business of photography will suffer immeasurable loss. He also contended that Sec. 10 (3) (c) of the Act is not applicable to the case.

( 2 ) THE Rent Controller on an enquiry held that the landlady does not require the additional accommodation bona fide ; she therefore cannot ask for the eviction of the tenant. The Rent Controller also found that the advantage which the landlady would gain is outweighed by the hardship that would be caused to the tenant. Consequently the petition was dismissed.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by that decision the landlady preferred an appeal before the Subordinate Judge disagreeing with the conclusion of the Rent Controller held that Sec. 10 (3) (c) is applicable to the case and that the advantage which the landlady gets because of eviction outweighs the hardship which the tenant is likely to suffer. He also held that the landlady in view of the increase in the number of members of her family bona fide requires the additional accommodation. It is against this order that the present revision petition was filed. When the matter was placed before our learned brother, the following two decisions w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document